Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ippy on June 19, 2016, 10:58:14 AM
-
Obviously a very active and intelligent person, said I have to say for the first time from space, "god save the Queen"?
I couldn't believe my ears, someone of his standing making himself sound rather foolish, so wet, it just doesn't sit with all of the things he has so obviously achieved?
ippy
-
Obviously a very active and intelligent person, said I have to say for the first time from space, "god save the Queen"?
I couldn't believe my ears, someone of his standing making himself sound rather foolish, so wet, it just doesn't sit with all of the things he has so obviously achieved?
ippy
I'm reminded of the Russian cosmonaut who said that he couldn't see God when he was in space.
God save the queen is one of those things which make us British.... I would expect nothing less of Major Peake than to toast the queen in space.
Gentlemen....The Queen!
-
Given that I've achieved jack compared to Tim Peake I'm not really in a position to judge him.
-
Just a shame he didn't give us a Bowie track like Hatfield did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo
-
Given that I've achieved jack compared to Tim Peake I'm not really in a position to judge him.
Me too Rhiannon (even if I had forgotten who he was - I remember him now of course).
What on earth is wrong with saying, "God save the Queen", unless it is the "God" bit that some object to, in which case, "Long live the Queen", or "Well done Queenie", would be suitable alternatives.
Even if a person is not a royalist, and I am not really, the Queen is a remarkable woman and has done very well so far, continues to do so too.
A very British remark as someone said earlier.
-
Me too Rhiannon (even if I had forgotten who he was - I remember him now of course).
What on earth is wrong with saying, "God save the Queen", unless it is the "God" bit that some object to, in which case, "Long live the Queen", or "Well done Queenie", would be suitable alternatives.
Even if a person is not a royalist, and I am not really, the Queen is a remarkable woman and has done very well so far, continues to do so too.
A very British remark as someone said earlier.
So it doesn't make you wonder why someone with all of those qualifications and highly intelligent couldn't think of something better to say than something so ridiculous, meaningless and wet "god save the queen", where do people get these odd ideas from?
My wife commented that it looks like he's nailed himself an honour of some sort by saying that, sounds about right to me.
It's sheer luck this particular queen is someone doing a good job of head of state, nothing else.
ippy
-
I'm reminded of the Russian cosmonaut who said that he couldn't see God when he was in space.
God save the queen is one of those things which make us British.... I would expect nothing less of Major Peake than to toast the queen in space.
Gentlemen....The Queen!
Prat.
ippy
-
Obviously a very active and intelligent person, said I have to say for the first time from space, "god save the Queen"?
I couldn't believe my ears, someone of his standing making himself sound rather foolish, so wet, it just doesn't sit with all of the things he has so obviously achieved?
ippy
Many very active and intelligent people believe in both the monarchy and God, ippy. Perhaps you need to accept that intelligence can accept the existence of such a being.
-
Prat.
ippy
When I first read this post, I thought it was a response to one of your posts, ippy. ;)
-
Given that I've achieved jack compared to Tim Peake I'm not really in a position to judge him.
But then perhaps you've achieved other things, different things, compared to Peaky.
-
Many very active and intelligent people believe in both the monarchy and God, ippy. Perhaps you need to accept that intelligence can accept the existence of such a being.
Very little to do with intelligence, I'd have thought.
-
I don't understand why you are so cross about it, Ippy. No-one is suggesting you say it. Tim Peake possibly made the remark because someone reminded him about the Queen's 90th birthday, that's just a thought. Bit cynical to say he is angling for an honour. Why should there ever be resentment about someone else receiving a compliment or a positive word? It doesn't take anything away from anyone else and sounds rather mean spirited.
Fast forward a few years and he might not have said the same! However, the performance of any other monarch, before and after her time, is not relevant to how anyone feels about the present queen and, from what I have been told and read, her parents did a pretty good job and were popular.
-
Very little to do with intelligence, I'd have thought.
Shaker, I'd agree, but ippy seems not to agree. After all, there are both 'intelligent' and 'non-intelligent' people (whatever those labels might mean) who believe in God and there are similar people who don't.
-
Intelligence - or rather a lack thereof - would presumably come into play if you're not aware that a particular belief rests upon faulty reasoning, that's to say, fallacious arguments.
Even more so if you're unable or unwilling to accept correction from others even when it's explained to you (repeatedly, from multiple sources) why you're wrong.
-
I doubt Tim Peake thought about what he said in such an analytical way, it was a remark, nothing more :D.
Edit: From this Mail article I have just found (& there are others), it seems he said this back in January. He is an army officer and the armed forces officially serve the Queen (whether people like the idea or not), so it isn't surprising. I think she sent him good wishes, etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3384739/A-message-Astronaut-Tim-Peake-person-say-God-save-Queen-monarch-space.html
-
Intelligence - or rather a lack thereof - would presumably come into play if you're not aware that a particular belief rests upon faulty reasoning, that's to say, fallacious arguments.
Are you suggesting that those highly intelligent scientists and scholars who also have a faith are schizophrenic in some way? Could it be that the fallacious arguments are those emanating from your side of the debate because of the inability of the intelligentsia on that side to understand that aspects of life that they take as read are beyond logic and reason?
Even more so if you're unable or unwilling to accept correction from others even when it's explained to you (repeatedly, from multiple sources) why you're wrong.
Sorry, Shaker, but in 50-odd years of taking part in this particular debate, I have yet to come across an explanation of that sort that holds water. In fact, I haven't heard any explanation that hasn't been posited over the years and centuries, and that hasn't had at least one flaw.
-
Are you suggesting that those highly intelligent scientists and scholars who also have a faith are schizophrenic in some way?
Obviously you're using that term wrongly. All too common, alas.
If by 'schizophrenic' you mean a sort of split mind, then yes, absolutely. George Orwell did us a service in giving us the term doublethink to label the phenomenon.
Could it be that the fallacious arguments are those emanating from your side of the debate because of the inability of the intelligentsia on that side to understand that aspects of life that they take as read are beyond logic and reason?
No.
A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. There are those who understand what they are and for that reason don't use them; those who don't understand what they are and use them accordingly; and possibly those who understand what they are but simply don't care and use them regardless, for whatever reason. (Pride, perhaps). Many here fall into the first category; you fall into one or the other of the latter two.
Sorry, Shaker, but in 50-odd years of taking part in this particular debate, I have yet to come across an explanation of that sort that holds water. In fact, I haven't heard any explanation that hasn't been posited over the years and centuries, and that hasn't had at least one flaw.
The fact that your would-be arguments are still stiff with logical fallacies even after all this time tells us that there's a very great deal indeed that you've missed.
-
Many very active and intelligent people believe in both the monarchy and God, ippy. Perhaps you need to accept that intelligence can accept the existence of such a being.
Hope it looks to me you may have missed something said in my post, like I said, "doesn't it make you wonder why someone with all of those qualifications and highly intelligent think of something better to say" and I also said", where do people get these odd ideas from.
it reminds me of good old Duggie's saying:
“I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.”
Like most terms used in psychology they keep on changing them, terms such as schizophrenia in past times indicated some kind of a split personality, using this now rather dated description I would definitely agree when someone is obviously highly intelligent and a god/royalist type person there has to be some sort of while I'm in god mode I have to shut down rationality mode, followed by when in rationality/mode I'll have to put the god/queenie bit to one side.
But there you are that's what I said I've hopefully clarified it for you, Hope, but there misinterpret away as you wish, you usually do.
ippy
-
I don't understand why you are so cross about it, Ippy. No-one is suggesting you say it. Tim Peake possibly made the remark because someone reminded him about the Queen's 90th birthday, that's just a thought. Bit cynical to say he is angling for an honour. Why should there ever be resentment about someone else receiving a compliment or a positive word? It doesn't take anything away from anyone else and sounds rather mean spirited.
Fast forward a few years and he might not have said the same! However, the performance of any other monarch, before and after her time, is not relevant to how anyone feels about the present queen and, from what I have been told and read, her parents did a pretty good job and were popular.
Hi Brownie, not cross I just find these kind of irrational remarks tiresome, my wife added the fishing for honours remark, which it could be.
You, might have guessed I'm a republican and don't really go with the present honours system, the system , many people do merit some form of recognition, of course and that is something that there should be, nor do I grudge these things to deserving cases.
Not cross just something I'm being serious about, have a good day brownie, I wish you well.
ippy
-
Intelligence - or rather a lack thereof - would presumably come into play if you're not aware that a particular belief rests upon faulty reasoning, that's to say, fallacious arguments.
Let's see your working out?
-
Hi Brownie, not cross I just find these kind of irrational remarks tiresome, my wife added the fishing for honours remark, which it could be.
ippy, I would suggest that Tim Peake is too intelligent to even consider fishing for compliments, let alone for an honour. After all, these things are decided upon many weeks in advance of the public announcement, not just days. At the same time, could you point out the 'irrational remarks' as you call them.
You, might have guessed I'm a republican and don't really go with the present honours system, the system , many people do merit some form of recognition, of course and that is something that there should be, nor do I grudge these things to deserving cases.
If I remember correctly, some 80% of recent honours have gone to folk few, if any of us have ever heard of, simply because they have been nominated by members of their own local or special interest communities. How would you publically recognise these people's acheivements?
-
Hope it looks to me you may have missed something said in my post, like I said, "doesn't it make you wonder why someone with all of those qualifications and highly intelligent think of something better to say" and I also said", where do people get these odd ideas from.
I saw those comments alright, and thought I'd responded to them, as well as others. If anything, he was simply being well mannered. After all, one tends to regard a 90-year old with respect - whoever they are.
it reminds me of good old Duggie's saying:
“I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.”
Possibly because of their being intelligent, ippy.
Like most terms used in psychology they keep on changing them, terms such as schizophrenia in past times indicated some kind of a split personality, using this now rather dated description I would definitely agree when someone is obviously highly intelligent and a god/royalist type person there has to be some sort of while I'm in god mode I have to shut down rationality mode, followed by when in rationality/mode I'll have to put the god/queenie bit to one side.
Do you have any evidence to support this suggestion, ippy?
But there you are that's what I said I've hopefully clarified it for you, Hope, but there misinterpret away as you wish, you usually do.
ippy
The nearest to clarification, that I can see, is that you don't seem to regard good manners to be worthwhile, you believe that both the monarchy and deity are outmoded concepts that need to be replaced by models of humanity who are no less flawed than what you're trying to get rid of (a seemingly pointless activity, in my eyes, as the democracy card so loved by some here is clearly a non-starter in the former concept) and an assumption that 'True' intellegence can only allow for the non-existence and non relevance of a deity and the monarchy respectively.
-
But Tim Peake has received an honour in the Queen's Birthday list.
I think that you are being too critical, analytical, of what was probably a casual comment designed to reflect his own nationality in the presence of Russians and Americans.
I think that this discussion - on both sides - is pointless.
-
I agree HH. I've just seen Tim Peake on the news and I'm sure he'd be amazed at having caused such controversy, albeit in a very small corner, by his remarks.
-
I agree HH. I've just seen Tim Peake on the news and I'm sure he'd be amazed at having caused such controversy, albeit in a very small corner, by his remarks.
What controversy Brownie?
ippy
-
I saw those comments alright, and thought I'd responded to them, as well as others. If anything, he was simply being well mannered. After all, one tends to regard a 90-year old with respect - whoever they are.
Possibly because of their being intelligent, ippy.
Do you have any evidence to support this suggestion, ippy?
The nearest to clarification, that I can see, is that you don't seem to regard good manners to be worthwhile, you believe that both the monarchy and deity are outmoded concepts that need to be replaced by models of humanity who are no less flawed than what you're trying to get rid of (a seemingly pointless activity, in my eyes, as the democracy card so loved by some here is clearly a non-starter in the former concept) and an assumption that 'True' intellegence can only allow for the non-existence and non relevance of a deity and the monarchy respectively.
True to form Hope, mis description of things you don't want to understand spiced with a pinch of N P F.
ippy.
-
I looked up NPF and it seems to mean something to do with Paint balling, firewall and the National Policy Forum of the British Labour Party. Please enlighten me Ipster, good morning to you on this rainy day.
-
I looked up NPF and it seems to mean something to do with Paint balling, firewall and the National Policy Forum of the British Labour Party. Please enlighten me Ipster, good morning to you on this rainy day.
I think that it's some secret code they put in their love letters to each other.
-
Oh right, thanks HH, I won't pry any further. ;)
-
Oh right, thanks HH, I won't pry any further. ;)
Hope's Negative Proof Fallacy, he wants others to prove his idea, that god or gods really do exist, for him, whereas the onus is on those with outlandish ideas to substantiate their outlandish ideas.
Have a look at his posts, he either refuses to get it or can't get it, I suspect it doesn't fit with his take on and about religious beliefs.
Most of Hope's posts end up like this where there's a relatively casual remark made about, in this case Tim's rather soppy wet sounding reference to Betty and saving her, into international crisis proportions.
My original post stood alone it didn't need Hope's misinterpretation, but there, that's how he is.
ippy
-
Such a casual remark that an entire thread was started on the strength of it, ippy (I worked out the negative proof fallacy bit).
-
Hope's Negative Proof Fallacy, ...
Something that ippy and others seem very knowledgeable about, suggesting that they have practised it on a number of occasions.
Have a look at his posts, he either refuses to get it or can't get it, I suspect it doesn't fit with his take on and about religious beliefs.
If you were to read those same posts, ippy, you'd appreciate that I'm challenging folk like yourself to provide evidence for your claims.
Most of Hope's posts end up like this where there's a relatively casual remark made about, in this case Tim's rather soppy wet sounding reference to Betty and saving her, into international crisis proportions.
By the time I made my first intervention, the 'relatively casual remark' had been queried and challenged by 3 or 4 other posters, suggesting that my views aren't unique.
My original post stood alone it didn't need Hope's misinterpretation, but there, that's how he is.
-
Something that ippy and others seem very knowledgeable about, suggesting that they have practised it on a number of occasions.
Nope - you are the main purveyor of the NPF, to the point of wearing it out.
If you were to read those same posts, ippy, you'd appreciate that I'm challenging folk like yourself to provide evidence for your claims.
Nope - you are inviting us to commit the NPF so as to disprove your claims: most of us here aren't naive enough to fall for that. The burden of proof is yours, and we await detail of the methodology you use to support your claims.
By the time I made my first intervention, the 'relatively casual remark' had been queried and challenged by 3 or 4 other posters, suggesting that my views aren't unique.
On that at least you are correct: there seem to be other credulous theists in addition to yourself.
-
Something that ippy and others seem very knowledgeable about, suggesting that they have practised it on a number of occasions.
If you were to read those same posts, ippy, you'd appreciate that I'm challenging folk like yourself to provide evidence for your claims.
By the time I made my first intervention, the 'relatively casual remark' had been queried and challenged by 3 or 4 other posters, suggesting that my views aren't unique.
My original post stood alone it didn't need Hope's misinterpretation, but there, that's how he is.
You're unbelievabl Hope, in the end you should have N P F marked on your gravestone.
ippy
-
You're unbelievabl Hope, in the end you should have N P F marked on your gravestone.
ippy
I probably will have it on my head stone (if I'm buried, as opposed to crenmated and ashes scattered, of course): I've long been a supporter of National Parks. ;)
The interesting hing is that you and others often state things in response to posts that I and others make. Often those statements are not supported by any evidence, or are clearly statements of opinion. I do find it amusing that the NPF 'fallacy' is often raised in such cases in order to avoid the question. Oh, by the way, I've referred to 'fallacy' twice in the previous sentence on purpose.
-
I probably will have it on my head stone (if I'm buried, as opposed to crenmated and ashes scattered, of course): I've long been a supporter of National Parks. ;)
The interesting hing is that you and others often state things in response to posts that I and others make. Often those statements are not supported by any evidence, or are clearly statements of opinion. I do find it amusing that the NPF 'fallacy' is often raised in such cases in order to avoid the question. Oh, by the way, I've referred to 'fallacy' twice in the previous sentence on purpose.
The great unanswered question is?
ippy
-
I do find it amusing that the NPF 'fallacy' is often raised in such cases in order to avoid the question.
That is no doubt because you don't understand it, since if you did you wouldn't keep using it.
-
The great unanswered question is?
ippy
OK, one 'unanswered question is 'On what do you base your confidence in science in all aspects of life?'. Another would be 'In what way would a political president (ie one elected from a slate chosen by the political parties - a la the USA or France) actually improve the democratic nature of the country?' If the US is anything to go by, the democratic process could be being stalled and blocked on a number of occasions every year or two.
-
That is no doubt because you don't understand it, since if you did you wouldn't keep using it.
No Gordon, I find it funny because I knew exactly what it is long before I ever joined this board and all too often it is used as a means to avoid answering perfectly valid challenges to opinions and so-called 'facts'.
-
No Gordon, I find it funny because I knew exactly what it is long before I ever joined this board and all too often it is used as a means to avoid answering perfectly valid challenges to opinions and so-called 'facts'.
Nope, as has been pointed out to you numerous times by numerous posters you keep making the same reasoning errors and as we have seen on another thread this evening you don't really understand research methods or statistics either.
-
No Gordon, I find it funny because I knew exactly what it is long before I ever joined this board
Or so you claim, along with much beside. Such as - to pick but one example out of very very many - your assertion that I have used the NPF more than you have. (As though that were even possible!). I don't recall the evidence for that being any more forthcoming than for any of the innumerable other assertions you've wheeled out.
This being so, why do you continue to use it so regularly?*
all too often it is used as a means to avoid answering perfectly valid challenges to opinions and so-called 'facts'.
No, it's people pointing out that your reasoning powers are defective, which clearly you dislike because you crash on regardless and continue to make the same error as though you've never been corrected. Nelson's Eye, Beethoven's Ear - it's ever the same.
* A representative sample: http://goo.gl/TX9rBo
"It's not that I descend into fallacies ..." ;D
-
OK, one 'unanswered question is 'On what do you base your confidence in science in all aspects of life?'. Another would be 'In what way would a political president (ie one elected from a slate chosen by the political parties - a la the USA or France) actually improve the democratic nature of the country?' If the US is anything to go by, the democratic process could be being stalled and blocked on a number of occasions every year or two.
Couldn't be easier Hope, I base my confidence on tried and tested systems that keep progressing toward more and more tried and tested evidence, I can't remember hearing anything about revealed science or anything equally as silly and pointless as revelation science.
The question is how do you or anyone else justify a heriditary system as fair play for all, Thomas Paine made a good assesment of this royals anarchism when he said, "why don't we have heriditary mathematicians".
I have no bone with any of them just the system that allows this to continue.
Having said that about the so called royals, none of that opinion of mine campares with your total blindness or refusal to let yourself see the error in your N P F question you keep putting out on the forum, surly you must realise how daft it makes you look, I'm certain you're not that daft, so what is it? Why?
Ippy
-
The question is how do you or anyone else justify a heriditary system as fair play for all, Thomas Paine made a good assesment of this royals anarchism when he said, "why don't we have heriditary mathematicians".
Tony Benn once asked who would get on a plane if you were told that the bloke up front has absolutely no flying experience whatsoever, but it's OK, his dad has :)
Having said that about the so called royals, none of that opinion of mine campares with your total blindness or refusal to let yourself see the error in your N P F question you keep putting out on the forum, surly you must realise how daft it makes you look, I'certain you're not that daft, so what is it? Why?
Something very odd at work here, ipster.
-
Tony Benn once asked who would get on a plane if you were told that the bloke up front has absolutely no flying experience whatsoever, but it's OK, his dad has :)Something very odd at work here, ipster.
It's very odd, odd's the word; we all have our differences but this continual digging up of this stupid N P F reply to anything he apparently doesn't like, I still don't see Hope as a complete bufoon, it puzzles me Shakes?
ippy
-
Couldn't be easier Hope, I base my confidence on tried and tested systems that keep progressing toward more and more tried and tested evidence, I can't remember hearing anything about revealed science or anything equally as silly and pointless as revelation science.
And which are often shown to be erroneous - either because of human error or because of human lack of understanding. It is amazing how many processes that have been part and parcel of life over the years - despite being queried and challenged by many people (including non-scientists and other 'ordinary' people) are only now being looked at by scientists who have realised the truth of these challenges.
The question is how do you or anyone else justify a heriditary system as fair play for all, Thomas Paine made a good assesment of this royals anarchism when he said, "why don't we have heriditary mathematicians".
Whilst I'm not a monarchist, I'm not a republican. After all, we often do have a form of hereditary-ness in that children will often follow in the footsteps of their parents - be that in things they volunteer for, work as or even support in other ways.
However, my main concern with some republican approaches is that the electoral system often stymies democracy as opposed to improving it. For instance, my experience of American politics is that progress in vital areas - such as healthcare and gun control is all too often stalled by the intervention of powerful - and often undemocratic - lobbying groups, and/or the way in which Presidents and the Senate/Congress ften cancel each other out meaning that something that gets through Congress often doesn't get through the Senate.
Whilst I've never actually researched this, I suspect that this system has killed off more legisative business than our unelected House of Lords has ever done, which more often than not improves, rather than kills off, legislation.
Having said that about the so called royals, none of that opinion of mine campares with your total blindness or refusal to let yourself see the error in your N P F question you keep putting out on the forum, surly you must realise how daft it makes you look, I'm certain you're not that daft, so what is it? Why?
As I mentioned to Gordon, I've known about the NPF for far longer than I've been a member of this board, and I have a pretty good understanding of what it means.
The reason I "keep putting" what you call the N P F question out on the forum is that you and others regularly make statements here. Statements are, by their very nature, meant to be authoritative and factual - yet often these statements are neither authoritative or factual. They are often based on personal and sometimes organisational opinion.
For instance, the assumption by many here that only ideas and concepts that can be proven by scientific investigation are valid. Do you actually have any evidence that that is the case? If you have, perhaps you could provide that evidence since no-one has ever managed to do so in all the years that I and others I know hae asked that question. Do you have any evidence to show that only science can answer the questions and problems humanity faces?
-
For instance, the assumption by many here that only ideas and concepts that can be proven by scientific investigation are valid.
Name names.
-
For instance, the assumption by many here that only ideas and concepts that can be proven by scientific investigation are valid.
Then you'll have an alternative method to hand: which is what exactly?
Do you have any evidence to show that only science can answer the questions and problems humanity faces?
Straw man: a number of us have said that we await details of your alternative to science and we haven't set constraints on what you might present.
After all, if you are able to claim that there are identifiable 'questions and problems' that are somehow outwith the scope of science then you must already have a method to allow you to identify these 'questions and problems' in the first place and then show how their characteristics are unsuited to scientific investigation.
So, you need to let us in on the secret method!
-
However, my main concern with some republican approaches is that the electoral system often stymies democracy as opposed to improving it. For instance, my experience of American politics is that progress in vital areas - such as healthcare and gun control is all too often stalled by the intervention of powerful - and often undemocratic - lobbying groups, and/or the way in which Presidents and the Senate/Congress ften cancel each other out meaning that something that gets through Congress often doesn't get through the Senate.
Inaccurate and inappropriate analysis.
What does the damage in the USA is party politics in an environment (similar to the UK) in which there are two dominant parties and a first-past-the-post voting system.
In addition, you appear to assume that since the USA chooses to have an executive president the United Republic of Great Britain should have one, too. Why not take Germany as your model instead?
-
Inaccurate and inappropriate analysis.
What does the damage in the USA is party politics in an environment (similar to the UK) in which there are two dominant parties and a first-past-the-post voting system.
In addition, you appear to assume that since the USA chooses to have an executive president the United Republic of Great Britain should have one, too. Why not take Germany as your model instead?
If wer did go down that route, brilliant - but I haven't heard many Republicans I know use that model. Almost all have used the US model.
-
I'm of the school of thought that things like the the way the House of Lords is populated and the hereditary royal system we have here in the U K are not a right and proper way to appoint these people; on saying that I have very little to offer on ideas of how to replace the H of L's, other than the obvious need to chuck out the bishops.
The royal system needs to go, there has to be a better system than the present one, choosing a head of state should be in some way based on merit; it's luck and only by chance, luck our present head of state, is a cracker, but it doesn't make sense to rely on luck for such an important appointment.
I feel sure that ridding ourselves of royals can be a far easier job to do than finding a better way of appointing those we have in the second house.
Ippy